Diamonds are forever, but what about diamond-ring guarantees? A couple has become frustrated with a poorly-designed ring that keeps ditching its diamonds. Here’s their story:
“My husband bought me a diamond ring for my birthday last year (Dec. 2008).
August of this year I lost the big diamond at my brother’s wedding reception – luckily the hotel staff FOUND IT right before they were about to vacuum. Lucky me. We brought the ring in thinking it was a freak accident and it wouldn’t happen again. 3 weeks later I lost another diamond – not the big one but a smaller diamond. We brought it in again and it was replaced. [The] company tells us ‘there is a lifetime warranty on the ring’ so the diamond was replaced and the ring was fixed. Well guess what happened? About a month later I lost the same diamond AGAIN. They replaced it – because like their policy states ‘the lifetime of the ring.’
“My husband went in livid and asked them to repair it and asked them why this keeps happening – they told us it was how the ring was designed. They will not give us our money back nor will they let us return the ring for the price it was purchased for – they want us to double the price of the ring.
“So my question is; they are really haphazard with explaining to us how long the “lifetime” of the ring is. Is that 1 year? Is that 4 years? Are they going to keep replacing these diamonds that are falling out with no repercussions? They are losing so much money on this ring yet won’t work with us to make sure we have a quality product. What happens if I want to pass this ring on to my child someday – will they still continue to replace the diamonds?”
What’s the responsibility of the jeweler in this situation? Should the couple just count their diamond-studded blessings?
More from Star Tribune
More from Whistleblower
The Whistleblower column and blog are shutting down, but our commitment remains to investigating tips from readers.
A Baltimore couple and their company were ordered to pay back $616,000 to Spanish-speaking immigrants for immigration services that they were neither qualified nor authorized to provide, the Federal Trade Commission announced last week.
A company that labeled millions of Facebook users as a "jerk" or "not a jerk" is facing federal scrutiny after the agency said it improperly obtained information to create user profiles.
CenterPoint agreed last week to pay at least $192,500 to settle a lawsuit filed by the City of Minneapolis and various insurance companies after a gas explosion near a south Minneapolis Cub Foods in 2011.
A company accused of "mortgage scams" spent at least $2 million for a direct-mail campaign aimed at Minnesota veterans, according to the Minnesota Department of Commerce.
Recommended For You
Plunging deeper into campaign controversy, Donald Trump publicly shamed a former beauty queen on Friday for her "disgusting" sexual past and then — in one of presidential history's more bizarre moments — encouraged Americans to watch a "sex tape" he said would support his case.
The 2017 rates released Friday are for the individual market where about 5 percent of state residents buy coverage.
"A clear and present danger to our country." ''Xenophobia, racism and misogyny." ''Beneath our national dignity."
As we learn more about each contender, it's more clear than ever that Minnesota must take advantage of this schedule.
They were ordered to pay $6.3 million or demolition would resume.